A Nagging Question about MN
by MikeGeneThe Decree from the 120 Strong defines methodological naturalism (MN) as "the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events." According to the Decree, MN "is the foundation of the natural sciences." But let's do a thought experiment.
MN is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?
MN is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if MN determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?
MN is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if MN determined that there once was a global flood?
If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all "without reference to supernatural beings or events?"
September 1st, 2005 at 12:18 am
That's different from previous definitions of methodological naturalism that I've heard. Methodological naturalism (as it's been defined before) is supposed to mean a methodology in which you assume for the purposes of research that all natural events can be explained without reference to supernatural events, without necessarily believing that to actually be the case (the definition of "natural" is kind of fuzzy, but God is definitely supposed to be excluded). This is supposed to be in contrast with philosophical naturalism, the belief that things actually are that way (ie atheism).
What's interesting in this case is that they've defined methodological naturalism as the actual view that all events in the universe have natural explanations, thus splitting the difference between MN and PN, and then declared that as the foundation of science.
Comment by Deuce — September 1, 2005 @ 12:18 am
September 1st, 2005 at 2:47 am
Good question Mike.
But I fail to see where is the connection between supernatural and claims of ID hypothesis. From what I read, ID does not move away from MN. Design features in biology can be perfectly well investigated through MN and still hold that an intelligent agent is a cause.
That shows that Dr. Avalos/Dr. Patterson's et. al. position stems from their own philosophical assumptions (atheism and anti-theism) and ignorance regarding ID claims. Their "concern" about science is a sham.
At first I thought that you are over reacting to all this, but since I changed my mind, seeing Dr. Patterson's engagement with or against free thinking over the period of 20 years. It is not witch-hunt yet, however we should keep our eyes on the matter.
Comment by inunison — September 1, 2005 @ 2:47 am
September 1st, 2005 at 5:58 am
Inunison,
I completely agree that ID does not move away from MN. The critics who think ID violates MN are not intellectually capable of teasing apart ID from a supernatural explanation. But as Deuce points out, it looks like the 120 Strong are trying to blur the distinction between MN and PN. That's the impression I got too, which is why I ask my nagging question.
Yes, it is not a witch hunt"¦.yet. The problem is that many critics are working hard at earning that reputation.
Comment by MikeGene — September 1, 2005 @ 5:58 am
September 1st, 2005 at 8:32 am
Doesn't it all "turtle down" to the supernatural? Why yes it does because by definition natural processes could NOT account for the origins of nature as natural processes only exist in nature.
Then we have the following:
Most time it is obvious the anti-IDists really have no clue. It also appears they (anti-IDists) try to blame IDists for the failure their faith has afforded science.
Comment by Joe G — September 1, 2005 @ 8:32 am
September 1st, 2005 at 9:00 am
It may "turtle down" to the supernatural, but science need not concern itself with that. The science merely has to show that a horizon like irreducible complexity has been reached, from which other disciplines must pick up the investigation of what lies beyond.
Of course, this is part of the horror of ID. It suggests that science has a limit, and other disciplines are better suited to some areas of knowledge than it is. And what's really terrifying is that these other disciplines (esp. philosophy and theology) have no agreed algorithms for universal agreement.
To which we must say, oh well. If that's the way the world is, we must live with it. We can't re-define reality just to make it more manageable.
Comment by TomG — September 1, 2005 @ 9:00 am
September 1st, 2005 at 9:47 am
TomG says: "Of course, this is part of the horror of ID. It suggests that science has a limit, and other disciplines are better suited to some areas of knowledge than it is. "
That is its suggestion, yes. Of course, IDism has utterly failed to present an argument which comes close to supporting that suggestion, including IC, which is nothing more than the argument from incredulity (I can't imagine how that could have evolved, and even if you can you can't "prove" any particular evolutionary pathway is true!).
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2005 @ 9:47 am
September 1st, 2005 at 9:52 am
To get back to MikeGene's question, if we lived in what appeared to be a magical universe rather than a natural one then science wouldn't, in fact, be a very useful method for learning about it. There would be lots of phenomenon, such as how could the earth and life appear suddenly 6,000 years ago and how could a global flood occur, which science simply wouldn't be able to explain.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2005 @ 9:52 am
September 1st, 2005 at 10:19 am
To even suggest that IC is an argument from personal incredulity demonstrates a true lack of understanding of what ID is or says.
ID is based on the following basic and simple premise:
But anyway, IF the anti-IDists even came close to supporting their position ID would never exist. The fact that ID does and has existed for centuries and has been a topic of inquiry for as long, shows there is genuine interest as well as evidence for it.
ID says nothing about magic. Any and all IDists should take umbrage with Aacobb's post. Max Planck was a great scientist. Through his scientific research he came to the following inference:
IF Aacobb had read The Privileged Planet or at least took an hour to watch the video he would see how ridiculous his position is. As Einstein said :
IOW in no way would we expect this from unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
Comment by Joe G — September 1, 2005 @ 10:19 am
September 1st, 2005 at 10:22 am
I have long thought that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is terribly unhelpful. Are human intelligent causes supernatural? Then why should a non-human intelligent cause be supernatural. If nature is defined as "that which is" then technically there cannot be a "supernatural." Furthermore, if supernatural is defined as what we cannot discover, then what was formerly supernatural becomes natural as our methods and instruments improve.
Comment by thegiffman — September 1, 2005 @ 10:22 am
September 1st, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Joe G says:
"ID is based on the following basic and simple premise:
"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the component""
So we can be confident that the "Mona Lisa" was not designed, because it has no identifiable function. Just goes to show how inane IDist claims about how we detect design are. In most cases we are confident that deisgned things are designed because we have designed them ourselves or observed someone else design them. A million year old hand axe doesn't have "ordered separate components", so it would fail the IDist test for design, but anyone else knows an axe when they see it because they have used axes themselves, and further research of examining the hand axe, the pattern of flakes left on the ground when it was shaped, and comparing those to what occurs when scientists replicate the process merely confirm what is obvious: a million year old hand axe was designed by a human. With limited exceptions, like sticks chimps use to fish for termites, the only designed objects we know of were designed by humans. Period.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
In addition to all of the excellent comments above, the 120 have botched their definition.
What they have described is philosophical naturalism, where every phenomenon does, in fact have a natural explanation, because 'natural' is all there is.
MN would be the search for the natural explanation if it were to exist, but does not say that the phenomenon CAN be explained by a natural process.
If we know that for every phenomenon we can find a natural solution, then we know that there is nothing other than the natural, and this is philosophy.
Or, is it true that there is no distinction between MN and PN afterall?
Comment by Pez — September 1, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 1:58 pm
But the Mona Lisa does have a function. Just because you can't figure it out means what to me?
However it wiould have been nice had Aacobb tried to take the quote in context. Dr. Behe was relating the detection of design in biological systems, which after all, is what is being debated.
BTW, the IDist would have identified the axe handle as being designed. The EF would have lead him to that inference.
One more thing- the limits extend to almost all organisms- that is they have the ability to design things.
Comment by Joe G — September 1, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 2:03 pm
I should add the only we reason we would be determining design or not is if there was a doubt. Now perhaps Aacobb would doubt the Mona Lisa was a product of design, but I doubt he could convince any one else.
Comment by Joe G — September 1, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I agree with thegiffman, that the concept natural vs supernatural is an idea whose time has come – to be jettisoned. If there is (some sort of a) God, what could be unnatural about that which underpins the cosmos? Why assume God acts outside the laws of nature? To speak this way exposes childish and magical thinking. That many Darwinists do speak this way is due to the primitive development of their personal thinking on such questions. Nor need the existence of a God conform to Biblical writings. If there was a flood, why assume science cannot analyze its causes? It could have been an asteroid, for example. And can science find the ultimate cause of existence? The point is, that IF there is a God, and IF science makes the a priori assumption that there is not, then they will be working under a false premise. That science and spirituality are incompatible spheres (Gould's preference) is a fallacy. Either there is no God and there is only science, or there is a God, in which case science cannot conflict with that. The possibility of a God need not in any way hinder the pursuit of knowledge.
Comment by onething — September 1, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 3:26 pm
JoeG says:
"However it wiould have been nice had Aacobb tried to take the quote in context. Dr. Behe was relating the detection of design in biological systems, which after all, is what is being debated."
Sorry, no, the quote said, "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything". The whole point of Behe's argument is that we can be confident that biological structures are designed because USING THE SAME PRINCIPLES we can detect design in anything. If in fact the principles are used only to detect design in biological structures, and they are useless for detecting design in other structures, there is no reason to be confident that they in fact detect design in biological structures; you have completely undermined the point of Behe's quote.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Onething says: "Why assume God acts outside the laws of nature?"
Good question. But this, in fact, is exactly what IDists do; assume that natural evolution cannot account for the diversity of life on earth, so God must intervene in the universe to somehow design it, using an undetectable method. If thats not magical thinking, I don't know what is.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Joe G says: "BTW, the IDist would have identified the axe handle as being designed. The EF would have lead him to that inference."
Joe, you should stop before you do any more damage to your argument. A hand axe doesn't have a handle; thats why its called a hand axe.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 3:40 pm
ummm – no. That's not what they say. All they say is that we can tell whether things are designed. The method may indeed be detectable – we don't know enough to say yet. And it need not be "God" (even for a Christian, as we do grant the existence of non-human non-carbon-based intelligent beings) – it just needs to be some sort of intelligent entity.
Comment by thegiffman — September 1, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 3:55 pm
thegiffman and onething:
The reason acts by God and other undetectable inhuman intelligent agents don't fall within the realm of science is because they aren't useful for making predictions and they are unfalsifiable. Gods and spirits do what they want when they want with few, if any limits to their capabilities. Thus predictions can't be made and the hypothesis can't be falsified because any conceivable observation is consistent with the hypothesis. Science has advanced us so far in our understanding of the universe over the last few centuries in comparison to millenia of mystical thinking because explanatory models made predictions which could be tested against observations, and either rejected for more accurate explanations or modified to improve accuracy. IDism is not science because it doesn't provide a theoretical framework which explains what we have observed and allows us to make confident predictions of what we can expect to observe, and there are no conceivable observations we could make which would falsify it. It is true that science cannot verify or falsify miracles performed by supernatural entities; that it no reason to discontinue what it has done so successfully for so long, and convert it into a subcategory of theology.
Comment by Aagcobb — September 1, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 4:49 pm
"Gods and spirits do what they want when they want with few, if any limits to their capabilities. Thus predictions can't be made and the hypothesis can't be falsified because any conceivable observation is consistent with the hypothesis."
Why must this, in principle, be the case? I don't see how the existance of non-human intelligence is at odds with a consistant, observable, reasonably predictoable, natural world. Human intelligence exists. Yet this isn't at odds with falsifiable predictions.
Comment by thegiffman — September 1, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 5:16 pm
Aagcobb,
I'm afraid you aren't listening. It's time to dispense with magical thinking. There is no such thing as a miracle. If you showed a primitive tribal person how waving a magnet over a pile of sand and metal filings enabled you to pull out the metal, they might think you a wizard with a magic wand. So what. Must we persist in that thinking style and assume that if there is a God, (who must then of necessity be the source of the cosmos) that all his actions are miraculous, supernatural and undetectable? If you drive your car today, or even tie your shoes, have your actions been supernatural simply because manufactured with a technology that is beyond the scope of nature to perform alone? Was your car made by acting outside the laws of nature? On the contrary, the deeper our understanding of nature, the greater our technology. Neither theism nor ID in any way encourage the abandonment of the scientific process. You say science cannot verify or predict miracles. What if someone turned water into wine in full view of a modern laboratory. Could they not confirm it? Of course they could. If such a thing ever occurred, it was done within the laws of nature.
But this, in fact, is exactly what IDists do; assume that natural evolution cannot account for the diversity of life on earth, so God must intervene in the universe to somehow design it, using an undetectable method. If thats not magical thinking, I don't know what is.
Comment by onething — September 1, 2005 @ 5:16 pm
September 1st, 2005 at 5:18 pm
oops, left your last paragraph on the bottom.
Comment by onething — September 1, 2005 @ 5:18 pm
September 2nd, 2005 at 12:07 am
Aagcobb: So we can be confident that the "Mona Lisa" was not designed, because it has no identifiable function.
I think function is just one way of cashing-out the idea of a specification; it would work well in some areas but it is not the only way to do it (I don't think). The Mona Lisa has, of course, a ready-at-hand specification, so functionality is not what one would look for if you were trying (for some reason) to tell if it were designed. That's my understanding anyway"¦
———
As for MN I think it has devolved into little more than false consciousness on the part of those wishing to get rid of Design.
Comment by de_nacisse — September 2, 2005 @ 12:07 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 12:52 am
I will tell you what Aacobb, if you show us something in which the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components, and it wasn't intentionally designed perhaps someone will listen to you.
BTW I didn't say anything about a hand axe- I specifically said an axe handle. And yes an alleged hand axe would have to get through the EF before it was inferred to be a hand axe.
It should also be noted that ID can be falsified- why else are anti-IDists trying to falsify it? You can't have it both ways- so it is un-falsifiable then run around shouting it has been falsified.
I have to wonder what, if anything, Aacobb knows and understands about ID…
Comment by Joe G — September 2, 2005 @ 12:52 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 4:57 am
Joe G said: "I have to wonder what, if anything, Aacobb knows and understands about ID"¦"
You can stop wandering, Aacobb is one of many who is opposed to ID but is not informed of its claims. This opposition is not based on scientific critique of ID claims but on certain type of logic. Check here, and see if and how Aacobb's arguments fit. http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.09.evologic.htm
Comment by inunison — September 2, 2005 @ 4:57 am
September 2nd, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Joe, I'm new here, and I know nothing about Intelligent Design except what I've seen in various blogs. Can you please explain for me briefly how ID can be falsified?
Comment by jim — September 2, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
September 2nd, 2005 at 11:20 pm
I have the similar question as Jim's for Joe and inunison: can you explain how you apply the explanatory filter and the design inference systems? I'm curious which genes, or sets of genes, using either Demski's or Behe's methods, can be inferred to be "designed". Is it all of them? If it is only some, can I give you a set of gene sequences and have you tell me if they are designed or not?
Actually, I don't think either of you would even know how to answer those questions (yes, that is a direct challenge). Neither of those two authors has published a method of determining when something is designed, just lengthy descriptions about how the conclusion is already obvious. If there were real methods, we could test them and verify or falsify them, and that would be science, instead of pure sophistry.
Comment by sanjait — September 2, 2005 @ 11:20 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 8:25 am
Over at Panda's Thumb, PvM replies to this entry where I share a "nagging question":
PvM posts a 368-word diatribe, yet never answers the question. I think he is trying to say the answer is "˜yes,' but I can't quite tell.
Comment by MikeGene — September 3, 2005 @ 8:25 am
September 3rd, 2005 at 8:51 am
Hi Jim,
Please take the time and read my essay. It explains how to falsify ID.
To Sanjait,
I am pretty sure that you are incorrectly applying the EF. I don't know of any IDists that would use the EF for specific genes.
Here is my essay. Hopefully iit will answer both of your questions. If not please let me know and I will try to clarify:
Why ID is scientific
Comment by Joe G — September 3, 2005 @ 8:51 am
September 3rd, 2005 at 9:56 am
But of course, methodological naturalism does not determine the Earth to be 6,000 years old. Methodological naturalism does not show much possibility that living creatures are unrelated — in fact there are signs that all living things share some ancestry. Methodological naturalism does not show any hint of a global flood.
The statement from the scientists to IDists says methodological naturalism is a view that natural events "can" be explained by proximate causes. You seem to have dropped the "can," and replaced it with "must."
But why? Do you fear that proximate causes will lead away from God? Christians who developed the scientific methods you now assail assumed as a matter of faith that proximate causes would, in a chain, ultimately point to God. IDists appear to have lost that faith. Were scientists to discover convincing evidence that the Earth were only 6,000 years old, it would be revolutionary. But that alone does not point to God.
Were pigs to fly, pig farming could be a subject of concern of the Federal Aviation Administration. If the FAA shows up at a pig farm tomorrow demanding to see the farmer's pigs to regulate them, the farmer is fully justified in slamming the door and locking the gates, and calling the medical authorities to inspect the FAA personnel.
A silly, philosophical hypothetical isn't evidence against methodological naturalism, particularly when the hypothetical is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of English.
Pigs don't fly. Earth is older than 6,000 years. ID has no science case.
Comment by edarrell — September 3, 2005 @ 9:56 am
September 3rd, 2005 at 10:02 am
Joe G appeals to Behe.
But tell us: Behe has several times claimed he has no argument with Darwin with regard to common descent among animals and plants.
So, where is the intelligent designer intervention? Behe has no means of determining whether the tiger's stripes are designed by intelligence or natural selection. Behe can't tell us whether the elephant's trunk is whim of an intelligent designer or product of the natural selection well documented in fossil elephant ancestors.
Under any philosophy, philosophical naturalism, existentialism, IDism or any -ism you wish to name, can ID distinguish what is "designed" by intelligence, as opposed to that which is designed by natural selection?
If I invented a half-torque, left-handed sky wrench to repair your automobile's cretisfan's hobswitch, would you buy it?
Comment by edarrell — September 3, 2005 @ 10:02 am
September 3rd, 2005 at 10:53 am
So rather than provide a yes or no answer, Edarrell offers a 250-word diatribe loaded with clichés.
Comment by MikeGene — September 3, 2005 @ 10:53 am
September 3rd, 2005 at 11:50 am
"Were pigs to fly, pig farming could be a subject of concern of the Federal Aviation Administration."
Hmmm… now here's a real matter of debate, something that strikes much, much closer to the lives of everyday Americans than MG's hypothetical. Specifically:
Should the FAA have jurisdiction over flying pigs? What about the USDA? APHIS? Do flying pigs need a broader spectrum of immunization or inspection if they are going to cross state (and perhaps national) borders? Is there a public health issue that we need to be worrying about?
Who licenses these pigs? Local authorities? The state? The federal government? Who gets to spend the funds that come from these licenses? How much do we charge for a flying pig license? Will these costs be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for ham and hot dogs?
What about air traffic? Do regional and national airports need to build stys (sp?) to hold flying pigs? Do we need to subdivide even more the crowded airspace in North America? Will this create more delays and gridlock over our airports?
I predict that MG et al. will duck these tough questions, these issues that affect the traveling and eating public of this country. We won't see simple, direct yes or no answers to any of them.
"A silly, philosophical hypothetical isn't evidence against methodological naturalism,"
Exactly, Ed. Nicely stated.
Comment by Art — September 3, 2005 @ 11:50 am
September 3rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
So now Art weighs in with his own 230 words of hand-waving. One theme remains constant "“ the critics either refuse or are unable to answer the question. We'll have to explore this odd reluctance to dialog.
Comment by MikeGene — September 3, 2005 @ 12:10 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 6:07 pm
This is not a scientific question or problem. What is MN? What if MN…?
Well, actually, MN is the name of the dormitory I once lived in several years ago at University, but that is something different from 'methodological naturalism.' The question Mike Gene asks defeats the possibility of an acceptable answer. He is merely playing a semantics game.
Natural = not-Supernatural. Hmmm…does that surprise anyone? Is it such an inspiring revelation? Not really. Or what would be a more appropriate balanced, holistic, integrative approach that could be maintained? Nobody is saying 'give up MN' but rather 'follow the evidence where it leads,' including using MN where it is required and helpful.
Claiming a human-made design is the same type of design as a bacterial flagellum is false analogy. It 'looks like design' doesn't necessarily mean it 'is design.' ID thinking, by repeating and not treating, has not progessed past the lame ontological argument – 'it looks like it because it is.' This is not strong theorizing and unfortunately is often used as weak politicizing.
Joe G, Mike Gene, Krauze, Salvador and other IDists, whether YEC's or not – can you answer this simple question?
What is the difference between human-made 'design' and non-human-made 'design'?
If not, why not? Are you all worried about splitting the 'big tent' (perhaps soon I'll stop calling it that in order to not sound redundant) that currently makes i+d theories so thinly spread? That 'tent' (partly funded and protected by DI) is apparently held together by an underdog syndrome, when really, if people just presented the 'revolutionary' theory i+d supposedly constitutes there could be much less time and energy spent on discussion of why i+d theory is still unsatisfactory in its present state.
Who really is not answering the nagging questions?
Arago
p.s. America (esp, the guy on the soap box) calls Britain one of its best Allies and yet IDists (98% American) would argue that the 10 pound British note (i.e. currency) is actually completely outdated and the figure on it should be dissented against. Darwin was supposedly a dummy because he used MN? Go figure!
Comment by g arago — September 3, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Okay, so now we have five critics weighing in with a combined total of over 1000 words. Yet still, there is no answer to the question I have laid on the table. It's as if the critics want to discuss everything and anything other than the question I raised.
G. arago asks, "What is the difference between human-made "˜design' and non-human-made "˜design'?"
I have long shown a willingness to walk the extra mile for the critics, answering the various questions they have put before me. I will indeed attempt to answer this question in due time. But this is not the place or time for it. However, when I do take a stab at it, will G. arago graciously acknowledge that I am trying to address the issue that matters to him?
Comment by MikeGene — September 3, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Please don't count my words Mike Gene; its unbecoming, a waste of your time and likely you'll miss the spirit of the conversation in doing so. I'm glad you'll face the question I pose of human-made vs. non-human-made 'design,' though I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply since all of the leaders of the IDM have avoided it. But then again, certainly you're different than all of them in your science-religion views also, so perhaps we'll all be impressed when that day comes.
'The question'? What question? I see four questions in the OP. No other questions but only word-counting in posts after that. If you want an answer to a question, then ask a question, not four.
Deuce has made good fare answering you in reply one. Why not reply to him and ignore those critics who miss the mark. My question gets at the issue of whether human-made things are natural or non-natural. Social is another word that enters the conversation, but need not here.
Deuce puts the issue you raise rather clearly:
For goodness sake, we're dealing with 'natural' sciences here, isn't that at least providing a clue. Yours is not a scientific question, is it Mike?
Otherwise, the pseudo-philosophical approaches given are not doing much to define what 'science' is and what its methods amount to.
Perhaps its better to ask a personal question: Does Mike Gene's approach reference a supernatural being(s) or event?
Comment by g arago — September 3, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Another 250 words with no answer.
Comment by MikeGene — September 3, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Arago,
You asked:
What is the difference between human-made "˜design' and non-human-made "˜design'?
How would we ever know if we never looked? Is this not an empirical question? If I was to speculate, I'd say the differences would result from the concepts that are employed in the designing, the abilities of the designing intelligence to modify the world, etc. The materials used to do the designing, etc. However, in all cases, the design will be realized in a physical substance.
Aargo, what do you want out of a theory? Think about Darwin. He really didn't tell us what the mechanism of variation was, now did he? Does that mean he didn't really have a theory? Most intellectuals recognize Darwin's greatness in the simplicity of a single idea: natural selection on variation. But you know what: Darwin's great idea was "unsatisfactory in its present state" for many decades.
So what are you looking for in a theory of ID? Do you want a full blown research program? Do you want every last detail worked out until there is little work to be done? What if ID were such that it wasn't complete until some future synthesis 70 years down the road? Would the content of its deliberations over the past decade be fruitless? Are you ready to deny that Behe and Dembski's work are at least the outershell, the framework, of a conceptual paradigm?
I'll stop soon, but before I do, here's something else you said:
"Darwin was supposedly a dummy because he used MN?"
Who's saying that Darwin was a dummy? I think Darwin was quite brilliant, much more so than his contemporary defenders.
Comment by bipod — September 3, 2005 @ 7:18 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Only the one about proving that evolution could not occur seems relevant to a 'superntaural' being.
Comment by onething — September 3, 2005 @ 9:24 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 4:06 am
Another answer by Mike Gene without clarifying his (single) question. Why play such games? What if, what if, what if George Bush Jr. = Mike Gene?
Thanks bipod, I'll get back to your post later. Several things to agree upon there, and this 'designing intelligence' (as in an active verb) that 'modifies the world' is certainly farther than most IDM-IDists usually like to go. Dembski's i+d is 'non-interventionist,' apparently.
Darwin's ideas/theories are outdated, yes. But evolution is greater than Darwin and biology combined. i+d theories have (thus far) shown to be more limited than either natural selection, mutability or evolution.
Comment by g arago — September 4, 2005 @ 4:06 am
September 4th, 2005 at 6:55 am
Even though I didn't really have my question answered, I'd like to answer MikeGene's question. I'm not a self-proclaimed "methodological naturalist", but I am a scientist (molecular microbiology) and my methodology does vaguely fit the MN description. Yes, we do seek to find natural explantions for things, and we do exclude the supernatural. We do this because in our experience (that is throughout the history of humanity and science), we have been able to find natural causes for countless observable phenomena that previous people had attributed to supernatural causes (the travel of celestial bodies, how people get many diseases, why people have different skin colors, etc. etc. etc…).
I think what is implied in your question is that we don't have a way to recognize real miracles. This is true, but we also don't go around claiming to have explanations for things we don't understand. If a supernatural event did occur, than the scientific method (MN I guess) properly applied would eventually lead us to the conclusion that we can't explain it. Some scientists would come along and try to explain it, and others would eventually discover evidence that the explanation is incomplete or incorrect.
IDists likely see the above paragraph as exactly what is happening now in contemporary biology. The theory of evolution is being exposed as insufficient to explain our observations of the world, right? But that is incorrect. There is not reason why mutation and natural selection couldn't create complex structures. We have substantial evidence, in the form of copious intermediate structures with the sequence similarity that the ToE posits, for countless complex structures, such as the blood clotting cascade, the eye and the archaebacterial flagellum (structurally similar but unrelated to the eubacterial flagellum behe mentions). How does ID theory deal with these examples?
In case you missed what I am implying, the presence of numerous intermediate structures, with structural and sequence similarity, tells us that it is possible emergence of more complex strutures from simpler ones, and a pretty precise picture of exactly how that occured.
Finally, there are those examples of complex structures where no substantial intermediates are known, such as the eubacterial flagellum. While we can trace the evolution of many of the various parts, (by virture of their sequence and structural similarity to other known genes which function singly or in known simpler associations, such as the pore forming portion, the ATPase, the protein that polymerizes the subunits etc…), we do not know of an older structure that uses most of the parts together. Should we thus switch to a default conclusion that God, I mean an unnamed designer, did it? If we are to do that, then we could use that to explain any observation which doesn't seem to fit accepted theory. And, as stated previously, that method has produced the wrong answer on numerous occasions.
Real science doesn't rule out the possibility of God, but if we posit that God acts in supernatural means, breaking the rules of nature that bind the rest of us, then there is no way to study it scientifically. Science does require MN, because nothing else has been effective in helping us understand the natural world. If you want to discuss hypotheses involving supernatural events, then the scientific method is not useful and does not apply, and you are not practicing science.
Part of ID theory fits this description. It does contain an implied appeal to supernatural causes. The math part at least attempts to be scientific, but it is so riddled with false assumptions that it appears to be deliberately fraudulent. For example, Demski's calculations selectively assume that complex structures are synthesized as random strings of proteins, or that intermediates structures can provide no fitness advantage, and that he can effectively estimate how many slightly different alterations in that structure will still have a function. This is and every other theory posited by the people at the Discovery Institute are so demonstrably false as to offend most real scientists, which is why you see them respond with such vitriol.
And yes, if you need me to explain these deficiencies further. Tell me any component of ID theory and I'll gladly either poke holes in it or explain how evolutionary thoery explains the observations. I enjoy the practice.
Comment by sanjait — September 4, 2005 @ 6:55 am
September 4th, 2005 at 7:00 am
What everyone's trying to tell you, MG, is that with false premises you can claim whatever the hell you want, true or false. Before you try to make logical arguments, maybe you should actually learn some logic. You should start by looking up the difference between a valid argument and a sound one.
I also hope my comment's length is more to your liking.
Comment by radzhi — September 4, 2005 @ 7:00 am
September 4th, 2005 at 7:09 am
Sorry for the smugness of the closing in the above post. Politeness sometimes abandons me at certain odd hours of the night. But, the offer still stands.
Comment by sanjait — September 4, 2005 @ 7:09 am
September 4th, 2005 at 8:48 am
radzhi, do you think that sound arguments are the only good arguments that exist? Your "Intro to Logic" lesson reveals your lack of sophistication on the relation between logic, human reason and discovery.
Comment by bipod — September 4, 2005 @ 8:48 am
September 4th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Okay, we're closing in on 2000 words of reply with no clear answers. Sanjait said he was going to answer, but it looks more like he is answering what he thinks I am trying to imply. Nevertheless, I'm getting the feeling that the consensus among the critics is that the answer to the question:
is YES.
Is there any critic who disagrees with that answer?
Comment by MikeGene — September 4, 2005 @ 9:57 am
September 4th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I thought I was pretty clear. "Yes, we do seek to find natural explantions for things, and we do exclude the supernatural." But, "…we also don't go around claiming to have explanations for things we don't understand." It's a yes, with a caveat. We do have to explain nature without reference to supernatural beings, but the competitive and peer-critical nature of science ensures that eventually we can falsify any false explanations. I know you like to word count MikeGene, but this is a direct answer to your question, and was when I last posted it in longer form.
Comment by sanjait — September 4, 2005 @ 2:43 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
And btw, without a vulgar parody of MikeGene's word count fetish, I can say that so far nobody has answered my question. "I'm curious which genes, or sets of genes, using either Demski's or Behe's methods, can be inferred to be 'designed.' Is it all of them? If it is only some, can I give you a set of gene sequences and have you tell me if they are designed or not?" The only reply I got was a link, but no answer to this question. Are all genes "designed", because every gene is a functional structure which depends sharply on its components (the amino acids)? Can any of you take a subset of genes or sets of genes and say whether they are, are not, or might be designed? (I add the last category in observance ofDemski's admission that his EF is prone to false negatives)
I really don't think any of you can. Correct me if I'm wrong, and impress us all with a demonstration of your design inferring ability.
Comment by sanjait — September 4, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
The problem is information theory and technology trancend natural law. Materialism and naturalism (law like behavior) are inherently decoupled from the central features of information. What makes biology sailient from any other form of matter is that it contains information.
A photograph, in the material sense is little more than "ink and paper". There is no law of physics or chemistry that dictactes when a "ink and paper" are a photograph, and when it is simply "ink and paper".
Applying MN naturalism to informatic structures is an inherent non-sequiter. The community of biologists have not quite come to terms with this. To understand why a photgraph is more than just "ink and paper" is to make the first step in understanding why MN is an incomplete approach to explaining the origin and identification of information.
The same body of mathematics which prevents you from using chance and necessity to deduce my computer passwords, is the same body of math that prevents recognizable informatic structures in biology from arising via similar mechanisms. Once that is grasped, from a scientific perspective, then one will see that design is a reasonable position. This change of perspective is too hard for some. Thankfully, the physicists, like Paul Davies, are well aware of "the death of materialism".
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 4, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Joe G: Who is trying to falsify ID? Where?
Comment by edarrell — September 4, 2005 @ 10:07 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Now I read that Mike Gene thinks the consensus on an answer to the question would be "yes," even though no one has come close to saying that, and most "critics have gone the other way.
The answer is "no," MG. Methodological naturalism means that, were it determined the Earth was 6,000 years old, we'd look for proximate causes of so recent a creation, since gravity, atomic theory and most of astronomy and nuclear physics would be seriously challenged, if not falsified, by such a finding.
Saying "God did it" is never the first response, not without hard evidence that God did it.
Comment by edarrell — September 4, 2005 @ 10:16 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Those which create proteins identified by Axe as having a specificity of 1 in 10^77. That is less than the UPB, but it is still a very remote chance. The Discovery Institute has funded his empirical lab research which resulted in that conclusion.
Another candidate are the Rhodopsin proteins which Conway Morris feels may have evolved independently.
These are tentative conclusions, but I think worthy of further investigation.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 4, 2005 @ 11:22 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
RE Mr. Cordova's comments on information theory:
I think even most ID supporters would disagree with your assessment that "The problem is information theory and technology trancend natural law. Materialism and naturalism (law like behavior) are inherently decoupled from the central features of information."
Information science is a real, naturalistic endeavor. It's studied, without reference to a supernatural creator, at major universities and produces testable theorems, theories and observations. It is a branch of mathematics, which is also strongly rooted in the natural world. We use math to describe and make predictions about how things behave in the natural world in countless different fields of study.
The assertion that a painting is "more than just ink and paper" is a pretty sentiment, and I'm not sure what else is being implied with it. If you are saying that somehow proves something, anything, I would be interested to hear about it.
"The same body of mathematics which prevents you from using chance and necessity to deduce my computer passwords, is the same body of math that prevents recognizable informatic structures in biology from arising via similar mechanisms." It is quite simple to demonstrate how this is not analagous to mutation and selection, but is actually a good example to illustrate the flawed logic and assumptions about search space that Demski uses.
The password only has a function in its entirety. Let's say the pw is 8 characters long, composed of an unpredictable string of numbers and/or letters in caps and/or noncaps. That leaves 62 possibilities at each point, and 62^8 different possibilities, or about 2 x 10^14. So it would be nearly impossible for a slow random sequence generator, say one that guesses once per second, to guess in our lifetimes. If the sequence was successful guessed, we would be reasonable in suspecting the guessing process was not in fact random.
Demskian math would conclude that evolution is disproven in this way. But, he overlooks (purposely in my opinion) the fact that evolution doesn't work that way. It doesn't string together long or numerous sequences de novo, as his assumptions posit.
And also, there isn't one correct answer to a function. As the presence of similar but not identical genes, with identical function and interchangeable among species, clearly indicates that there are multiple possible solutions to any function. Mutation experiments show us that the possibilities are in fact quite large.
Then he also overlooks the fact that things evolve through intermediate structures. Any complex system, including the blood clotting system, the eubacterial flagellum and probably any other "irreducibly complex" system invariably has some parts that are similar and homologous to other genes.
So this means Demski's models both grossly overerestimates the size of the search space, grossly underestimates the number of possible targets of that search, and mischaracterizes the whole process by claiming that a final product must come from a one-step search when evolutionary clearly indicates, with no great logical leap required, that the actual process is a number of small step-wise searches to get from very simple genes to the complex structures we see today.
If that all was too technical to for people to understand, think of this question: If information theory is supposedly not rooted in nature, as in it is supernatural, how then do mortal heroes like Demski and Paul Davies go about studying it?
Comment by sanjait — September 4, 2005 @ 11:24 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Another candidate is the analysis of gene transcription where the gene exists in a prokaryotic architecture vs. a eukaryotic architecture. If we establish independent pathways for the evolution of the same gene in these seperate architectures, the convergence is indicative of design. \
I have a feeling Woese was trouble by this possibility, and tries to "fix" it with a horizontal gene transfer theory. His approach is problematic as well….
Another area of research is bi-direction or framshift expressions of the same gene. Frame shift and bidirectional reading is highly suggestive of a pre-meditated compression algorithm, much like a zip file. It is early in the game, but if we close our eyes to that possibility, it may well inhibit our ability to fully understand the entities in question.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 4, 2005 @ 11:29 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
There is no information theory without reference to a mind. Information implies knowledge and observation, it is even framed in term of "reduction of uncertainty". Uncertainty implies observer, observer implies that mind is sitting somewhere at the end of the regress…
Further "law like behavior" implies
1. deterministic processes
2. stochastic processes
3. some combination of #1 and #2
There are forms of information where #1,#2, #3 are inssuficient in and of themselve to be agents to generate informatic structures without the aid of intelligence.
"law like behavior" implies algorithmically compressible behavior, and there are informatic structures, such as some in biology which resist that kind of compression. Linguistic constructs, like the text in this post is an excellent example of somthing which resists "law like" principles found in physics.
Implementing the "grammar laws" which govern text requires quite a bit more sophistication than what the laws of physics can, in and of themselves generate.
Information can not flow through a channel where the outcomes of the symbols are governed by laws. The capacity for uncertainty is what allows information to flow. Therefore, laws with inevitable, predictable outcomes are the antithesis of what makes information flow possible. It is not a question of "Supernatural" it is a question of the inherent contradiction of applying law-like behavior to informatic systems, and the fact that an "observer" or mind is needed to bring self-consistency to the analysis.
This is an interesting topic, regretfully it is not the central topic of this thread. I felt however, it was important in the spirit of reciprocity to answer your questions since you did make an effort to answer Mike's question.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 4, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Sal, you claim to have had some training in math. Maybe you can look at Axe's 2004 paper and calculate the ranges of "protein probability" at the 95% and 99% confidence levels.
Show your work, and don't leave any data out.
Thanks.
Comment by Art — September 5, 2005 @ 12:02 am
September 5th, 2005 at 12:12 am
Art,
Perhaps you can answer Mike's question if you haven't already. They might allow the discussion about protein folds elsewhere.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 5, 2005 @ 12:12 am
September 5th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Sal, you tossed out a number. I think you need to give us the complete picture. Or retract your claim.
Comment by Art — September 5, 2005 @ 12:19 am
September 5th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Salvador: My reference to information theory clearly differs from how you understand it. There are information sciences, rooted in the math of the natural world, investigable by MN (the subject of this thread), that create testable hypotheses and methods. They don't assume a designer or observer necessarily, only that there is a hypervolume of possibility that can be resolved to a solution by some method.
You, however, seem to assume, without justification, that any kind of information proves the existence of a designer. Using this line of logic, you have assumed that any information not created by man must have come from another designer. That means any and every gene is the product of design, or anything which has parts and we can assign a "function" also does.
Then you claim that we cannot investigate this with MN? This leads very obviously to the question: how do you investigate it? Do you, being a mortal in the natural world, have the power to investigate the supernatural. With your chains of rhetorical implications, with undefined terms and unproven assertions, do you expect the scientific community to recognize those methods? How can you use a method like that and claim any certainty? The thread is about MN, but I think this is an example of how ill-defined and unproductive the alternative, as it is vulnerable to the whims and ambiguities of the english language. The results of MN investigations of life, which point strongly to evolution, can be tested and potentially falsified by any mortal and translated into any language.
You seem to conclude that design is inherent in information, thus information is proof of design. I think MN-based mathemeticians refer to that shape as a circle.
Comment by sanjait — September 5, 2005 @ 12:38 am
September 5th, 2005 at 8:18 am
edarrell asks:
Who is trying to falsify ID? Where?
You want a list? Start with Ken Miller.
As Dr. Behe wrote:
"Coyne's conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the "acid test" on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall's work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science's Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: "However, structures and processes that are claimed to be "˜irreducibly' complex typically are not on closer inspection." (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can't have it both ways. One can't say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum–or any equally complex system–was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
How about Professor Coyne's concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design."
Comment by Joe G — September 5, 2005 @ 8:18 am
September 5th, 2005 at 8:33 am
Sanjait:
But I did not ask what you do. The question was, "does MN then mean we must explain this all "without reference to supernatural beings or events?""
Anyway, since your answer is close enough, let's add another. From the scientific perspective, when it comes to weighing YEC, the evidence regarding the age of the earth, evolution, and whether a global flood occurred, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that YEC proposes a supernatural cause. Right?
Ed:
LOL.
Comment by MikeGene — September 5, 2005 @ 8:33 am
September 5th, 2005 at 10:52 am
This was Mike's question:
What is the current tally of reponses?
What is the ratio of "Yes/No" answers to the amount of words offered by the critics to avoid answering the question?
My answer is "No", but I'm not considered a critic of ID generally. MN does not mean we exclude the supernatural as a causal explanation. My friends at the DI would disagree, but that is my answer.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 5, 2005 @ 10:52 am
September 5th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
WHat are you laughing about MikeGene? We all gave you complete answers, and they were essentially the same. By leaving out my caveat, you tried to make them appear different. By failing to acknowledge the ambiguity of your question, you claimed they weren't answered when you didn't get the simple answer you wanted.
When you say "must", this is a point of ambiguity. "Must" according to whom? I said "yes", we must try to find natural causes. But with the caveat that we mustn't provide an explanation if our research. That could be considered a "yes" or a "no" if you choose, but it is nevertheless a perfectly clear and complete answer. "Yes" we must try to explain using natural causes, but no we don't have to explain anything if our research doesn't support the explanation. MikeGene, why do you continue to proclaim your question wasn't answered? Can I be any more clear?
Comment by sanjait — September 5, 2005 @ 2:25 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
MG "Anyway, since your answer is close enough, let's add another. From the scientific perspective, when it comes to weighing YEC, the evidence regarding the age of the earth, evolution, and whether a global flood occurred, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that YEC proposes a supernatural cause. Right?"
Wow, I thought your first question had ambiguities. "Relevant" to what? Why would evidence about evolution and geology we irrelevant to weighing YEC?
I think I might see what you are getting at, and I think I found the root of your incredulity and the basis for this thread. Do we throw out YEC because it appeals to the supernatural, or because it doesn't agree with the results of our research that is predicated on natural explanations? Is this what you are asking?
I would say that we do rule out YEC as a scientific theory because it doesn't agree with what we see in the world. There are far too many deviations in the natural world from that theory to justify it.
However, even abiding by the scientific MNist methods, if our research didn't rule out the YEC story, we still wouldn't use it as a scientific theory. We would describe what we could about our geological and biological data, and leave it at that. If science couldn't disprove the theory, good scientists wouldn't claim too.
I think what is happening is you are trying to convolute methodological naturalism with atheism. The MN scientific method doesn't require us to claim there is no God, it just requires that we don't use Him to justify our research findings. You can't publish theories that have no basis in the natural world in the scientific literature, so you can't publish theories based on supernatural causes. This doesn't mean there is no God, it means that we acknowledge we can't prove our disprove Him in our labs.
This contrasts sharply with atheism, which positively claims that there is no God. A good scientist would never claim that he has evidence to that end. A small number may say that evolution or some other science is evidence disproving God's existence, but they are not using methodological naturalism to make that claim. Contrary to what you probably believe, MN would not allow us to claim to have disproven God.
And BTW, nobody has still ever addressed my questions about which genes are designed, and whether anyone here knows how to tell. I've answered all your questions thoroughly, and my direct challenge has gone completely unanswered.
Comment by sanjait — September 5, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
You've made excellent points, sanjait.
They deserve recognition.
"We would describe what we could about our geological and biological data, and leave it at that."
" The MN scientific method doesn't require us to claim there is no God, it just requires that we don't use Him to justify our research findings."
"This doesn't mean there is no God, it means that we acknowledge we can't prove our disprove Him in our labs."
"A good scientist would never claim that he has evidence to that end."
"Contrary to what you probably believe, MN would not allow us to claim to have disproven God."
Comment by Pez — September 5, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Umm, thanks Pez. I assume you aren't being sarcastic, but I've posted on enough message boards to know that I can never actually tell. I think a lot of people are frightened by what they perceive as atheism in science. Yet, this couldn't be farther from the truth. If any scientist tried to proclaim he had proof for atheism, he would probably be ridiculed and shunned by his peers for using unscientific methods. If there was a movement to include a proof of atheism theory in public schools, real scientists, who comprise the vast majority of practicing researchers, would protest loudly.
Comment by sanjait — September 5, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
sanjiat
I know sarcasm and disingenuous comments run rampant on these sites
but my repeating of your comments was not sarcastic, although it was obviously pointed.
I think you made them in sincerity and not just to mollify those who fear that "science is atheistic". I think they deserve to be reviewed by those "science is atheism" believers – whether they think that said atheism is a good thing or a bad thing.
Comment by Pez — September 5, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
grr
sorry,
"sanjait"
Comment by Pez — September 5, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Yes, this is well-stated, especially if science is limited to natural causes. But as always there are over-riding questions. Can't publish them (theories) where? Can't publish them in 'the scientific literature' is different than saying they can't be published in a journal of theology.
Some people think theology can be approached scientifically, so therefore theories based on supernatural causes can be published there. But the main point is that i+d theories are claimed to be 'scientific' and deserving of respect at that table. Even hardcore IDists would likely accept discussion of i+d theories in religion or philosophy milieus. So the theistic science mission of IDM-ID is what's really in question. Mike Gene doesn't agree with this version of i+d so his doubts are likely much as sanjait mentions.
LOL! B-I-N-G-O!
Please Salvador, don't dramatize like this. Apparently you are not critical of i+d theories at all – who's kidding who here? You can't just be a wedgie when you wanna be and then declare immunity from direct challenges to your theistic science! MN and Methodological Supernaturalism (MSN) should not be so easily conflated.
An excellent question for Mike Gene!
Arago
Comment by g arago — September 5, 2005 @ 5:24 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Sanjait:
What am I laughing about? You're trying to scold me for not acknowledging that most critics have answered "˜yes' while Ed is scolding me for assuming most critics have answered "˜yes' and tells me the answer is "˜no'.
Comment by MikeGene — September 5, 2005 @ 10:26 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Ok MG: I'll explain it for the last time, then I promise to leave this thread alone. We answered your question, but with more than a simple yes or no answer. It's clear you are choosing to see this as confusion and evasiveness, when it was just that a simple "yes" or "no" did not transmit enough information to sufficiently address the question. Still, the answers were pretty clear (especially mine of course). The "Yes, with a caveat" was qualitatively the same as Ed's "no".
I believe that you are not really incapable of comprehending this, but instead are choosing to ignore it to try and score cheap sophist's points. It's your board, but I won't sit there and watch it without pointing it out.
"Yes" we try to find natural causes, but "no" we mustn't explain phenomena using natural causes if the evidence doesn't justify it. This is a very simple and reasonable perspective, and I can't say it any more clearly. If you wish to continue pretending that it is ambiguous or confused, that is certainly your choice.
Comment by sanjait — September 5, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 1:55 am
How is this general description of MN an answer to Mike's very specific question?
Comment by orion — September 6, 2005 @ 1:55 am
September 6th, 2005 at 2:30 am
*head explodes*
I didn't give "a general description of MN", I gave you the complete algorithm for how to use it, which is what Mike asked.
The question is, "…does MN then mean we must explain this all 'without reference to supernatural beings or events?'"
This is how MN addresses any question, including the one Mike wrote (written using the same language as the original question to make it very clear): We must try to explain all without reference to supernatural beings or events. But it doesn't mean that we must explain all at all. To say we must, as people, explain all without reference to supernatural events would be atheism. MN simply requires us to try to explain all using natural means, and acknowledge when we cannot. In MikeGene's hypothetical case, (which seems to posit but doesn't state that we live in a world that supernatural forces recently created), MN would vigorously attempt to observe the world, but would have to acknowledge when eventually and inevitably any attempt at explaining using only natural causes would fail.
I admit, it was a yes or no question, but I've certainly given enough information to both answer the question and show how a simple yes or no would not be accurate or sufficient. Does anyone on this message board understand that?
I have to be honest and say that it appears you are all unfairly expressing incredulity on this simple point only because I don't agree with ID generally, which is a charge I've heard many ID critics levy against the ID movement generally. Please don't confirm their accusations…
Comment by sanjait — September 6, 2005 @ 2:30 am
September 6th, 2005 at 3:02 am
So are you acknowledging that in the case of MikeGene's thought experiment that MN can not provide a naturalistic explanation?
Comment by orion — September 6, 2005 @ 3:02 am
September 6th, 2005 at 8:26 am
sanjait:
"Yes" we try to find natural causes, but "no" we mustn't explain phenomena using natural causes if the evidence doesn't justify it.
Great answer! (I think it is anyway)
So OK, let us say that natural causes are not justified as an explanation for X. Does that mean that X is outside of scientific inquiry? IOW can science study and come to an understanding of X via the current methodolgy used?
Comment by Joe G — September 6, 2005 @ 8:26 am
September 6th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Grr, I really was going to leave this thread, but those are good honest questions so I'll answer.
Orion said: "So are you acknowledging that in the case of MikeGene's thought experiment that MN can not provide a naturalistic explanation?" The thought experiment is a hypothetical situation, so I don't know what MN methods would find for sure. I was guessing (and later was mildly chastised for the conjecture) that Mike was positing the existence of a world where some very significant supernatural things had recently occurred, the literal biblical Creation. In such a world, we would attempt to find natural causes, and if we were doing our jobs right, we would ultimately fail to come up with one that survived the rigor of scientific testing for very long. In this case, we would try to use MN, but we ultimately wouldn't be able to, even given an infinite amount of time and technology to investigate the question.
This leads somewhat to JoeG's similar question, that has an important difference. "let us say that natural causes are not justified as an explanation for X. Does that mean that X is outside of scientific inquiry? IOW can science study and come to an understanding of X via the current methodolgy used?"
In the finite time we inhabit this world, if we encounter a phenomenon where we cannot find natural causes, we don't just assume that it is supernatural or outside the scope of scientific inquiry. History is full of examples of people doing just that (as I mentioned before, regarding the motion of planets, the weather, the causes of diseases, the beginning of the earth…) and then we subsequently find natural causes.
Today we don't know what causes gravity, what makes up subatomic particles, what the universe was like before the big bang, or even how the genesis of life on earth occured to any high degree of certainty.
I know many of you prefer to say that since we can't explain every minute step in the genesis and evolution of life we should assume a default conclusion of supernatural causes, but there are two problems with this: 1. it is an unfounded assumption that we can't confirm. 2. The strategy has proven wrong multiple times in the past.
To answer JoeG's question directly; there is no case where we can positively say "that natural causes are not justified as an explanation." This requires an omniscience that mortals do not possess. So, if we cannot in our research find natural causes that are able to explain X, then we will continue to look for natural causes to explain X. If X really is supernatural, then what will happen is that we attempt to use natural causes to explain it, but the test and retesting process that is modern science will eventually knock down all our false explanations, ultimately leaving us unable to explain X using only natural causes.
Now, I'm sure many of the people on this board believe that is exactly what is happening now with evolution, the knocking down of a false theory. But I don't think I have to tell you that I, like almost every expert in the field, disagree with you completely on that point. Given an infinite amount of thread, I would happily explain why.
Comment by sanjait — September 6, 2005 @ 8:17 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Sanjait:
You really ought not speak for "we" since it's not clear you are the spokesperson for any group. This is especially true when you've been forced to come up with a way to explain how Ed's "˜No' was really a "Yes."
To point out something is to assume you are observing objective reality. What you are doing is expression your opinion as a function of the impressions you have.
I understand this position, but it looks like a way to evade the question. If I plug it into the question, you are saying that yes, MN means that we must explain a 6000 year old Earth with a history of a global flood and evidence that renders evolution impossible in natural terms, but no, we mustn't explain all of this using natural causes if the evidence doesn't justify it.
If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, would you say that YEC was strongly supported?
Comment by MikeGene — September 6, 2005 @ 11:39 pm
September 6th, 2005 at 11:42 pm
What I was saying is that, for example, we have already determined that natural causes do not apply. Period. Actually we do have such an example- the origin of nature could not have been via natural causes as natural causes can only exist in nature.
No amount of research is going to change that fact.
So is it still "scientific" to keep looking? If natural causes are determined in a death, do we still call in the homicide detectives?
Is intelligence natural? Is design natural?
Comment by Joe G — September 6, 2005 @ 11:42 pm
September 7th, 2005 at 12:53 am
Thanks Sanjait for such a good response.
As I understand it what you are saying is that in principle there could be events for which MN can not justify a naturalistic explanation. Of course this nice neat situation is merely a thought experiment.
In answering JoeG you state that:
If omniscience isn't the critical factor in ruling out naturalistic explanations in the thought experiment why would it be so in the real world?
Comment by orion — September 7, 2005 @ 12:53 am
September 7th, 2005 at 3:31 am
To Mike: I say "we" for scientists who conform to what I understand methodological naturalism to be, from with my own personal assessment of what most scientists think like. I am just a grad student, and I admit that I have no data to supporting that assessment, and I can only state what my impression is. I do know plenty of scientists and have worked with many, from diverse backgrounds, in a mircrobiological lab that does utilize evolutionary thoery to help us understand the world, and it is only by this thin thread that I support my assertions. I look forward to seeing you be this skeptical the next time one of your compatriots, who likely aren't scientists, claim that most scientists are materialists and atheists.
Also, I do think you enjoy being incredulous, despite the fact that even some of your IDist fellows seem to understand my answer to your question, but I admit that you are correct in saying that is just my opinion.
JoeG: The idea that nature must have been created by a supernatural being is not a fact, it is an assumption. An alternative theory is that nature has always existed. Do you really have any evidence to support either theory? Scientists don't, and that is why you won't see them claim either one with any certainty in a scientific context. To do so is to venture into the realm of faith or speculation.
Regarding the question of whether "intelligence" and "design" are natural, I'm not sure how to answer that. They certainly have components that exist in the natural world, and that we can characterize, test and even alter, but we are very far from a solid theory of consciousness. So I suppose the answer modern science should give to that question would be, "inconclusive, but we will keep looking…"
Orion: I think you are asking a similar question as Mike's in a more direct way. If science comes upon a mystery where we cannot find a natural explanation, we leave it unexplained. If it is truly a magical event, someone will still try to explain it naturally, but inevitably we will find evidence to refute it. In this way we rule out that specific natural cause, and any other one we can prove false.
But, generally speaking, we don't know what we will discover in the future, so we cannot positively say that we will never be able to find any natural cause. Only if we could see the future could we do that, which is what I meant by the requirement for omniscience to actually rule out natural causes in general.
To answer Mike's question: If we found that there was a great flood and the earth was 6000 years old and species didn't evolve, and if in this hypothetical universe there wasn't any other natural explanation of these events, then methodological naturalism would remain inconclusive in perpetuity. As I stated before many times, MN is clear on how we "must" proceed in this situation, if we are to stay in accordance with MN.
However, I suppose if the YECs or other religions were able to predict these findings of MN well in advance, many scientists might abandon MN altogether. I can't make a solid prediction, because there are more ambiguous variables to consider in your hypothetical situation. Does YEC posit other events which do not or did not actually occur according to the other findings of MN? Do other apparently magical things happen in this universe? Do other cultures have similar but slightly different theories about the Creation that also conform to MN? You also have to consider the fact that if apparently "supernatural" things happen in a testable and describable way, they are eventually incorporated into our understanding of the natural world. There have been many discoveries that would seem magical to humans from a different age, but we have now characterized using MNist methods. Do you think we could ever do that with God? lol
Comment by sanjait — September 7, 2005 @ 3:31 am
September 7th, 2005 at 3:34 am
Ugh, it's getting late and my writing ability is leaving me. In part of the response to Orion, I should have said that "If it is truly a magical event, someone will inevitably still try to explain it with a false natural cause, but inevitably we will find evidence to refute that. In this way we rule out that specific natural cause, and any other one we can prove false."
Comment by sanjait — September 7, 2005 @ 3:34 am
September 7th, 2005 at 9:11 am
sanjait:
The idea that nature must have been created by a supernatural being is not a fact, it is an assumption.
I said that natural causes could not account for the origins of nature.
sanjait:
An alternative theory is that nature has always existed. Do you really have any evidence to support either theory?
But science has already determined that this universe, ie nature, had a beginning. Scientists refer to it as "the big-bang". What has a beginning requires a cause.
What does today's science tell us about the origins of the laws that govern this physical world? Not a real question, but I am starting to realize that I have never ever heard anyone explain how such a seemingly finely-tuned for life universe can come about without a plan/ design.
Comment by Joe G — September 7, 2005 @ 9:11 am
September 7th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Joe,
Leaving aside the possibility that the big bang theory will not stand the test of time after all, it still doesn't mean that it was some sort of absolute beginning. What if the bang and collapse is part of some recurrent cycle?
Comment by onething — September 7, 2005 @ 11:06 am
September 7th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Onething. First of all, while new ideas and hypothesis should always be tested, to be true to science we rely on what evidence we have, not some hope or faith that what could come to past in the future. Also, your suggestion of an oscillating universe does note bode well with the facts. Hugh Ross provides the following summary of that model:
1.The maximum radius of the universe would increase from cycle to cycle because of irreversible thermodynamic changes. Therefore, a backwards look would show in finite time a decreasing radius down to a point.
2. The universe's observed density is at most only half of what is needed to force a collapse.
3. All inflationary models of the universe imply mass densities too small to force a collapse
4. Reasonable inflationary models of the universe do not allow for subsequent deflation.
5. No known physical mechanism can consistently reverse cosmic contractions.
6. Isotropic compression becomes violently unstable near the end of the collapse phase.
7. Even if the universe were to collapse, more than a very few bounces would be impossible because of the huge entropy in the universe.
From here
Comment by Dane Parker — September 7, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
September 7th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Hi Dane,
Thanks for the link. I've had a bit of a look. Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist or cosmologist and can't deeply understand the arguments. I thought that the endlessly expanding or contracting universe were both theories undecided as yet. Although even if it dies in a heat death, that does not necessarily mean a new one will be born.
I note however that apparently the steady state universe is somehow considered more compatible with atheism. I see no connection. On the other hand, even if our universe will be a finite event, that in no way precludes God from making new ones each time, so I find the Christian attempt in this article to make only Christianity The One True Religion a bit silly.
To me, matter itself is a proof of God, in fact the existence of anything at all is a proof of God.
Even if an oscillating universe cannot be scientifically defended, we cannot know that natural causes did not lead to the big bang, and I don't consider the big bang as a sufficient proof of God.
Comment by onething — September 7, 2005 @ 1:33 pm
September 14th, 2005 at 1:37 am
[Long links deleted, as they were strecthing out the screen. -Kr]
Pingback by Teleological Blog » Blog Archive » Don’t Let Evil Avalos’ Bashings Against Gonzalez — September 14, 2005 @ 1:37 am